Rothbard

Richard Cantillon (1680-1734), an Irish-French banker/merchant predating Adam Smith, is arguably the founder of modern economics. The book he wrote shortly before his demise, Essay on the Nature of Trade in General, officially published in 1755, was an influential and highly citied document, before it was overshadowed by the retardation of economics that would follow in the form of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776). Cantillon rescued economic analysis from its traditional conflation with politics and ethics. In the words of Friedrich Hayek, “this gifted independent observer, enjoying an unsurpassed vantage point in the midst of the action, coordinated what he saw with the eyes of the born theoretician and was the first person who succeeded in enterating and presenting to us almost the entire field which we now call economics.” ...

Passages From The Wealth of Nations The following passages from Adam Smith’s An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations have received enormous attention over the centuries following their publication in 1776. “[A man] will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them … It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” “As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of. . .industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. . .(B)y directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” “Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” These passages are seen as evidence of Adam Smith promoting laissez-faire capitalism. Note the introduction of the “invisible hand” meme in the second passage, one that has been propagated around without much regard for context. These famous quotes convey the idea that it is through the selfish pursuit of our own goals that the good of the economy results, and this is more desirable than a direct, motivated pursuit of social good. The anti-free market positions advocated by Adam Smith, therefore, come as a shock to those who imagine him as the paragon of the laissez-faire paradigm. ...

There are two opposing thoughts regarding money I am considering at the moment. On the one hand, we have the idea that to the extent it serves a nonmonetary purpose, it is an inferior form of money. For example, gold, which is a form of money, also has various other use cases as jewelry, industrial raw material, etc. These use cases compete against the monetary use case. Until Bitcoin, there was no contender for pure money. That Bitcoin lacked any other utility was hurled as a criticism. The idea was something like this: gold has various other utilities (and corresponding demand), so its price is unlikely to fall below a certain level; Bitcoin, on the other hand, due to absence of such alternate uses, would see its price collapse to zero some day. ...

The Question That Stumps Libertarians The libertarian, upon pointing out the excesses of the state, is confronted by the inevitable question from the statist: “Are you an anarchist?” The connotations of anarchy are such that the libertarian, if he says yes, finds himself defending ‘chaos.’ If, on the other hand, he says no, he legitimizes a degree of state intervention, and from that point, having ceded ground to the statist, he consigns himself to the defensive for the remainder of the debate. ...

Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, in his criticism of usury laws, described the concept of time-preference and its role in lending at interest. Time-preference refers to the discounting of the future, and the concomitant placing of a premium upon the present. If this rate of discounting is high, the time-preference is high. If the discounting rate is low, the time-preference is low. Since we prefer a present good to an equivalent amount of the good at some point in the future, lenders will demand, and borrowers will accept, an interest on a loan. Interest is the price of time-preference. ...

The Price-Specie-Flow Mechanism The price-specie-flow (PSF) mechanism is the extension of the quantity theory of money (QTM) to a multi-country scenario. Proponents of the end-neutrality of QTM often implicitly assume a closed economy. But when nations trade amongst each other, the injection of monetary units in a nation can, instead of putting upward pressure on local prices, promote imports, and thus cause an outflow of money, in the short term. The price-specie-flow mechanism accounts for these dynamics. ...

Free market interactions led to the emergence of gold as money. Gold was divisible, durable, recognizable, and most importantly, difficult to inflate. Thus, it maintained its purchasing power better than other commodities that were easier to produce. However, gold suffered from certain drawbacks. While it was divisible, dividing it physically was practical only to a certain point. Also, carrying it in large quantities was costly and cumbersome. Furthermore, verifying the authenticity of gold coins and bars was time-consuming. ...

Gresham’s Law stipulates thus. “Artificially overvalued money will drive out of circulation artificially undervalued money.” As terrible as the US Dollar has been at inflation in a century, other currencies have proven to be worse. Governments throughout the world have been egregiously inflationary. They have expanded their money supply and devalued their currencies. Entities in these countries have thus resorted to hoarding (a term without a negative connotation to me) US Dollars. The upward pressure on the demand for US Dollars is such that despite the massive expansion in US Dollar supply, we do not see the corresponding amount of price level rises in the US. The abysmal fiscal policies of the rest of the world allows the US to export its price inflation. ...

In earlier posts, I have regarded inflation as counterfeiting conducted by the government. This is not hyperbole. It is merely calling an activity its proper name. The Illegal Case To understand this label, let us go over what happens when an ordinary criminal counterfeits money. Suppose these fake tokens are virtually indistinguishable from already circulating monetary units. The criminal and his associates are able to go to the market and buy goods and services at prevailing rates. These people benefit the most: they did not even have to part with anything of value to obtain these tokens. ...

Inflation (that is, the counterfeiting of money by the government) has several destructive effects on the economy. It transfers wealth from late recipients of newly issued monetary units to those who receive them relatively earlier. It hurts the ability of economic actors to perform economic calculation. It degrades the quality of goods and services produced in the economy. Furthermore, it causes boom and bust cycles in the economy. Wealth Redistribution The overall effect of the introduction of new monetary tokens is a general increase in price levels. But this effect is neither smooth nor instantaneous. Not everyone acquires an equal amount of these tokens, or at the same time. Also, not all prices rise proportionately, or at the same time. (See The Cantillon Effect). ...